How many combat ready Eurofighters does Germany have today? If I recall correctly, 2 crashed last summer (2019). If the situation dictates it, how many Eurofighters can the Luftwaffe scramble and get airborne with live weapons to defend Germany's airspace?

889091 wrote:

How many combat ready Eurofighters does Germany have today? If I recall correctly, 2 crashed last summer (2019). If the situation dictates it, how many Eurofighters can the Luftwaffe scramble and get airborne with live weapons to defend Germany's airspace?

Airbus lists 141 active with the German Air Force per this link, https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... rcraft.pdf as of 31 Jan this year. It also shows 623 total orders for the Eurofighter of which 570 had been delivered and 563 were in operation.

As for how many could be scrambled at one time that probably varies. If you're talking about aircraft on alert it probably sits in the 12-16 number while with a little notice I expect they could launch 50+.

Thanks Ozair!

889091 wrote:

How many combat ready Eurofighters does Germany have today? If I recall correctly, 2 crashed last summer (2019). If the situation dictates it, how many Eurofighters can the Luftwaffe scramble and get airborne with live weapons to defend Germany's airspace?

There are 2 jets at 2 bases each (4 in total) ready for QRA duty at all times. Additional jets are kept in reserve for QRA that could be scrambled with a little delay, approximately 6 additional aircraft per base for 16 in total. Obviously this can vary slightly with maintenance but the QRA is the core capability that is kept available under all circumstances.

I've always assumed, as a layman, that the Growler is probably loaded up with state of the art, super classified, EW capabilities. I wonder if Germany will get "the full package?"

And I have to say that in my heart I was hoping for more F15s. But I understand the arguments for the SH.

SteelChair wrote:

I've always assumed, as a layman, that the Growler is probably loaded up with state of the art, super classified, EW capabilities. I wonder if Germany will get "the full package?"

I expect that the general airframe and systems will be the same between the operating nations. Potentially there may be some difference in the EW pods acquired. I assume the German Growlers, if they are ordered, will not bother with ALQ-99 pods but go straight to the NGJ. There may be some differences in the jamming programs with the US likely having some US only programs.

It will be interesting to know, although doubtful it would ever be released, what the differences may be between German, Australian and US Growlers and additionally if the Finn's order what their aircraft will comparatively be equipped with.

Ozair wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I've always assumed, as a layman, that the Growler is probably loaded up with state of the art, super classified, EW capabilities. I wonder if Germany will get "the full package?"

I expect that the general airframe and systems will be the same between the operating nations. Potentially there may be some difference in the EW pods acquired. I assume the German Growlers, if they are ordered, will not bother with ALQ-99 pods but go straight to the NGJ. There may be some differences in the jamming programs with the US likely having some US only programs.

It will be interesting to know, although doubtful it would ever be released, what the differences may be between German, Australian and US Growlers and additionally if the Finn's order what their aircraft will comparatively be equipped with.

It looks like I may have made some incorrect assumptions. I assumed the Growler was the most advanced with regard to computer hardware and software, but this article claims that the F-15EX has the most advanced mission computer and the most advanced radar in the world, even more advanced than the F-22.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

SteelChair wrote:

It looks like I may have made some incorrect assumptions. I assumed the Growler was the most advanced with regard to computer hardware and software, but this article claims that the F-15EX has the most advanced mission computer and the most advanced radar in the world, even more advanced than the F-22.

Not really relevant. F-35 is getting a new processor in 2023 as part of TR2. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/27/harris-lm-icp/

SH blk III is also getting a new computer. https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... block-iii/


As for radar having a powerful radar is only a part of the equation. If you combine a powerful radar, which F-15ex, F-22, F-35 and SH all have with low RCS you get a paradigm shift. Tactically combining a powerful radar with a low RCS is a massive advantage which the F-15ex can not do, it is still the same tennis court RCS.

SteelChair wrote:

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

F-15ex is at the end of the dev cycle while SH has a strong dev path forward. SH is also probably half the sustainment cost of an F-15 no matter the variant. There are also soon to be no USAF F-15 squadrons left in Europe.

Ozair wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I've always assumed, as a layman, that the Growler is probably loaded up with state of the art, super classified, EW capabilities. I wonder if Germany will get "the full package?"

I expect that the general airframe and systems will be the same between the operating nations. Potentially there may be some difference in the EW pods acquired. I assume the German Growlers, if they are ordered, will not bother with ALQ-99 pods but go straight to the NGJ. There may be some differences in the jamming programs with the US likely having some US only programs.

It will be interesting to know, although doubtful it would ever be released, what the differences may be between German, Australian and US Growlers and additionally if the Finn's order what their aircraft will comparatively be equipped with.

From a plain cost perspective I would be highly surprised the hardware isn't identical, but software won't. For EW the knowhow is in the software. The RF hardware is not the capability enabler after all.

SteelChair wrote:

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

I would be somewhat surprised if either the FA-18 or F15 had any meaningful kinetic advantage over the Eurofighter. And the Tranche 4 AESA radar isn't to shrug at either. Hensoldt is a world leading company after all.

I am curious if the bi-static capability will be fielded. They tested it, SARah is about to be in orbit.

http://elib.dlr.de/55400/1/RoBaKrMo_TGRS10_ieee.pdf

Best regards
Thomas

Ozair wrote:

German, Australian and US Growlers

For comparison, the ESM suite for the US, UK, AUS and Norway P-8A are the same. If Germany ever decide to go with the P-8, the will most likely get the same system.

And to show my bias, I would say the P-8A currently has the most advance computing system flying. They are already starting their 3rd increment of upgrades.

bt

Ozair wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

It looks like I may have made some incorrect assumptions. I assumed the Growler was the most advanced with regard to computer hardware and software, but this article claims that the F-15EX has the most advanced mission computer and the most advanced radar in the world, even more advanced than the F-22.

Not really relevant. F-35 is getting a new processor in 2023 as part of TR2. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/27/harris-lm-icp/

SH blk III is also getting a new computer. https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... block-iii/


As for radar having a powerful radar is only a part of the equation. If you combine a powerful radar, which F-15ex, F-22, F-35 and SH all have with low RCS you get a paradigm shift. Tactically combining a powerful radar with a low RCS is a massive advantage which the F-15ex can not do, it is still the same tennis court RCS.

SteelChair wrote:

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

F-15ex is at the end of the dev cycle while SH has a strong dev path forward. SH is also probably half the sustainment cost of an F-15 no matter the variant. There are also soon to be no USAF F-15 squadrons left in Europe.

I've always wondered about the fetish with stealth. Does a fighter even need stealth? If you're in a fighter, aren't you looking for a fight in the first place? Its different than an attack plane. And once you turn on the radar and begin emitting, doesn't that exponentially increase your chances of being detected and tracked, even with a so called low probabilityof intercept radar? And once you start shooting, doesn't that also give up the game of stealth?

tommy1808 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I've always assumed, as a layman, that the Growler is probably loaded up with state of the art, super classified, EW capabilities. I wonder if Germany will get "the full package?"

I expect that the general airframe and systems will be the same between the operating nations. Potentially there may be some difference in the EW pods acquired. I assume the German Growlers, if they are ordered, will not bother with ALQ-99 pods but go straight to the NGJ. There may be some differences in the jamming programs with the US likely having some US only programs.

It will be interesting to know, although doubtful it would ever be released, what the differences may be between German, Australian and US Growlers and additionally if the Finn's order what their aircraft will comparatively be equipped with.

From a plain cost perspective I would be highly surprised the hardware isn't identical, but software won't. For EW the knowhow is in the software. The RF hardware is not the capability enabler after all.

SteelChair wrote:

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

I would be somewhat surprised if either the FA-18 or F15 had any meaningful kinetic advantage over the Eurofighter. And the Tranche 4 AESA radar isn't to shrug at either. Hensoldt is a world leading company after all.

I am curious if the bi-static capability will be fielded. They tested it, SARah is about to be in orbit.

http://elib.dlr.de/55400/1/RoBaKrMo_TGRS10_ieee.pdf

Best regards
Thomas

With regard to kinetics, I'm sure the Eurofighter can out turn the F15 and would be very formidable in a close-in engagement. But with regard to raw power, top speed, payload capability, persistence/range, isn't the much larger F15 much more capable?

SteelChair wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

I expect that the general airframe and systems will be the same between the operating nations. Potentially there may be some difference in the EW pods acquired. I assume the German Growlers, if they are ordered, will not bother with ALQ-99 pods but go straight to the NGJ. There may be some differences in the jamming programs with the US likely having some US only programs.

It will be interesting to know, although doubtful it would ever be released, what the differences may be between German, Australian and US Growlers and additionally if the Finn's order what their aircraft will comparatively be equipped with.

From a plain cost perspective I would be highly surprised the hardware isn't identical, but software won't. For EW the knowhow is in the software. The RF hardware is not the capability enabler after all.

SteelChair wrote:

That makes the German decision more perplexing to me. Why not put the best radar and computers into the most kinetically capable airframe?

I would be somewhat surprised if either the FA-18 or F15 had any meaningful kinetic advantage over the Eurofighter. And the Tranche 4 AESA radar isn't to shrug at either. Hensoldt is a world leading company after all.

I am curious if the bi-static capability will be fielded. They tested it, SARah is about to be in orbit.

http://elib.dlr.de/55400/1/RoBaKrMo_TGRS10_ieee.pdf

Best regards
Thomas

With regard to kinetics, I'm sure the Eurofighter can out turn the F15 and would be very formidable in a close-in engagement. But with regard to raw power, top speed, payload capability, persistence/range, isn't the much larger F15 much more capable?

Sure, it can have longer range and carry more stuff.... but what for? No need to fight Migs over the German/German border from bases in the UK after all. And the EF can super cruise pretty fast, probably much more valuable than top speed on burners. It's also already in the fleet, and there is no dedicated EW/SEAD/DEAD variant of the F15.
The FA18 hence makes sense, if there should be a 3rd type in the air force, the F35 would certainly be a better choice than the F15.

Best regards
Thomas

SteelChair wrote:

I've always wondered about the fetish with stealth. Does a fighter even need stealth?

Not quite a fetish when every single new fighter program is looking to include stealth. Russia with the Su-57, China with the J-20 and FC-31, Germany, France and Spain with the FCAS, UK and Italy with the Tempest, India with the AMCA, Turkey with the TF-X, South Korea with the KF-X, Japan with the F-3 and of course the US with the F-22, F-35 and NGAD/F/A-XX.

Stealth provides a significant advantage on the battlefield across air, land and sea and nations across the globe spend billions trying to reduce their signatures across the EM spectrum.

SteelChair wrote:

If you're in a fighter, aren't you looking for a fight in the first place? Its different than an attack plane.

In a fighter you are most likely looking for a fight but what you are really looking for an unfair fight. Just like flying out of the sun during the Second World War you want to create a situation where you have the most certainty of winning and stealth is a significant factor in creating that situation. By having low EM observability you can better dictate the terms of the engagement by positioning yourself to advantage and your opponents to a disadvantage. Whether that is spatial position or not launching your missiles until they are within their no escape zone etc makes a big difference to forcing your opponent defensive and subsequently winning the engagement.

SteelChair wrote:

And once you turn on the radar and begin emitting, doesn't that exponentially increase your chances of being detected and tracked, even with a so called low probability of intercept radar? And once you start shooting, doesn't that also give up the game of stealth?

Fighter radars have come a long way and modern AESA systems have some very impressive capabilities including LPI. In a fight with a modern stealth aircraft you might be able to detect the occasional transmission but likely may not be able to determine direction. Additionally within for example a flight of F-22 or F-35 they have LPI directional data-links that allow them to share sensor information. You could have one F-22/F-35 blaring away with its radar while the rest of the flight are on silent but have the radar picture transmitted to all the other aircraft. The sensor fusion across the platforms allows all tofuze everything each aircraft is seeing across each of their sensor systems. You can see the tactical advantages that could provide noting not all stealth aircraft are created equal…

With modern active radar guided missiles the seeker head won't activate until it is within its detection range and commanded to by the aircraft. That translates to the missile being detected potentially 60 seconds after launch and the launch aircraft can therefore spatially separate itself from the launch bearing.

tommy1808 wrote:

From a plain cost perspective I would be highly surprised the hardware isn't identical, but software won't. For EW the knowhow is in the software. The RF hardware is not the capability enabler after all.

Yes as I suggested with the jamming programs being different. Additionally though the ALQ-99 and NGJ pods are equipped in low, mid or high band frequency ranges and therefore a user may decide to acquire only low and mid or mid and high depending on their role, mission intent or acquisition budget.

Past that it is also a question of the signatures database that a nation has available to program against. All well and good to claim that Sweden for example is great at EW but they may only have access to signature data from a small subset of global threats. The US obviously has the largest collection apparatus in the history of the world and therefore can target threats across that whole space.

There was a recent, reasonably basic episode of the fighter pilot podcast on EW with a Prowler/Growler aircrew member, https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/epi ... ic-attack/ which provides some of the advantages, issues and tactical implications that have to be factored in when using a dedicated jamming asset.

This is very interesting. I wasn't aware that Germany plans to go it alone on the AESA radar for their Eurofighter upgrade. Hensoldt was partnering on the CAPTOR-E but the way this report reads is that Germany will be funding the whole development and deployment of a different or variant radar to their fleet of Eurofighters.

Germany picks Hensoldt for Eurofighter AESA radar integration

Berlin has approved a contract for sensor house Hensoldt to complete development, production and integration work on an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for its air force fleet of Eurofighter combat aircraft.

“With this decision, Germany is taking on a pioneering role in the field of key technology for the Eurofighter for the first time,” says Hensoldt chief executive Thomas Mueller.

...

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 97.article

Ozair wrote:

I wasn't aware that Germany plans to go it alone on the AESA radar for their Eurofighter upgrade. Hensoldt was partnering on the CAPTOR-E but the way this report reads is that Germany will be funding the whole development and deployment of a different or variant radar to their fleet of Eurofighters.

The way in which AESA is being implemented on the Eurofighter ihas given rise to delay and inereased cost. Not clever at all.

art wrote:

Ozair wrote:

I wasn't aware that Germany plans to go it alone on the AESA radar for their Eurofighter upgrade. Hensoldt was partnering on the CAPTOR-E but the way this report reads is that Germany will be funding the whole development and deployment of a different or variant radar to their fleet of Eurofighters.

The way in which AESA is being implemented on the Eurofighter ihas given rise to delay and inereased cost. Not clever at all.

Indeed, it has taken too long and up until the Qatar and Kuwait orders, when an AESA was available, the absence of an AESA likely hindered export sales.

Interestingly this Janes article suggests this isn't a new radar but merely the integration contract for the German T2 and T3 Eurofighters for CAPTOR-E. Am I reading it wrong though and this is a subsequent additional new/updated radar either for the proposed T4 jets or a replacement for the CAPTOR-E?

Germany approves upgraded AESA for Eurofighters

The German Bundestag has approved funding to develop, build, and integrate a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system for the Luftwaffe’s Eurofighter combat aircraft fleet.

The approval by the Bundestag's Budget Committee, announced on 17 June, will see national sensor-house Hensoldt lead the effort to equip the Luftwaffe’s 79 Tranche 2 and 31 Tranche 3A Eurofighters with an updated AESA (also known as electronically scanned [E-Scan]) radar system.

…

The Eurofighter consortium that comprises Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK is already developing an AESA/E-Scan radar through the Euroradar consortium. This effort, led by Leonardo UK, builds on the aircraft’s existing Captor mechanically scanned (M-Scan) radar, and is known as Captor E-Scan and/or Captor AESA (CAESAR). This baseline AESA is referred to as Radar Mk 0 (also Radar 0), and is the system slated for Kuwait and Qatar, as well as initially for Luftwaffe Tranche 2 and 3 Eurofighters also.

…

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... rofighters

I've looked through recent German reports and there seem to be two primary contracts:
- Outfitting of the Eurofighter fleet with the existing AESA radar (Captor-E) by Airbus (500 million €)
- Development & integration of a new multi-channel receiver (MCR) for the Captor-E by Hensoldt, in cooperation with Airbus and Indra (1.5 billion €)
The overall upgrade budget appears to be 2.8 billion €, I don't know what the remaining money is for. Hensoldt's press release is pretty nondescript: https://www.hensoldt.net/news/important ... logy-base/

The protocol of the budget subcommittee of the German parliament states https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/ ... g-data.pdf :

Vorlage des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen
Abschluss von Verträgen mit einem Volumen von jeweils mehr als 25 Mio. Euro im Einzelplan 14 sowie Einwilligung in die teilweise Aufhebung der qualifizierten Sperre der Verpflichtungsermächtigung bei Kapitel 1405 Titel 554 17 - Beschaffung des Waffensystems Eurofighter - in Höhe von bis zu 1.083.957 T Euro gemäß § 36 Satz 2 BHO;

Beschaffung von Radargeräten mit elektronischer Strahlschwenkung sowie Entwicklung und Integration eines Mehrkanal-empfängers für diese Radargeräte für das Waffensystem Eurofighter

Submission of the Federal Ministry of Finance:
Signing of contracts with a volume of more than 25 million euros each in Section 14 as well as consent to the partial lifting of the qualified block of the authorization under Chapter 1405 Title 554 17 - Procurement of the Eurofighter Weapons System - in the amount of up to EUR 1,083,957,000 in accordance with section 36 sentence 2 BHO;

Procurement of radar devices with electronic beam swiveling as well as development and integration of a multi-channel receiver for these radar devices for the weapon system Eurofighter

The first paragraph basically means that the budget was previously limited to 1 billion €, and that this limitation was lifted.

It is unclear to me whether the Tranche 2 & 3 jets will receive the baseline Captor-E first and the MCR later, or both will be installed in one go. The former (2 steps) seems more likely, though.

mxaxai wrote:

I've looked through recent German reports and there seem to be two primary contracts:
- Outfitting of the Eurofighter fleet with the existing AESA radar (Captor-E) by Airbus (500 million €)
- Development & integration of a new multi-channel receiver (MCR) for the Captor-E by Hensoldt, in cooperation with Airbus and Indra (1.5 billion €)
The overall upgrade budget appears to be 2.8 billion €, I don't know what the remaining money is for. Hensoldt's press release is pretty nondescript: https://www.hensoldt.net/news/important ... logy-base/

The protocol of the budget subcommittee of the German parliament states https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/ ... g-data.pdf :

Vorlage des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen
Abschluss von Verträgen mit einem Volumen von jeweils mehr als 25 Mio. Euro im Einzelplan 14 sowie Einwilligung in die teilweise Aufhebung der qualifizierten Sperre der Verpflichtungsermächtigung bei Kapitel 1405 Titel 554 17 - Beschaffung des Waffensystems Eurofighter - in Höhe von bis zu 1.083.957 T Euro gemäß § 36 Satz 2 BHO;

Beschaffung von Radargeräten mit elektronischer Strahlschwenkung sowie Entwicklung und Integration eines Mehrkanal-empfängers für diese Radargeräte für das Waffensystem Eurofighter

Submission of the Federal Ministry of Finance:
Signing of contracts with a volume of more than 25 million euros each in Section 14 as well as consent to the partial lifting of the qualified block of the authorization under Chapter 1405 Title 554 17 - Procurement of the Eurofighter Weapons System - in the amount of up to EUR 1,083,957,000 in accordance with section 36 sentence 2 BHO;

Procurement of radar devices with electronic beam swiveling as well as development and integration of a multi-channel receiver for these radar devices for the weapon system Eurofighter

The first paragraph basically means that the budget was previously limited to 1 billion €, and that this limitation was lifted.

It is unclear to me whether the Tranche 2 & 3 jets will receive the baseline Captor-E first and the MCR later, or both will be installed in one go. The former (2 steps) seems more likely, though.

Thanks, very interesting. I am not sure it is even clear from those documents what the actual plan is.

Seems though that this may be why the RAF has also been holding out on committing to Captor-E and why the Germans have gone this route with Hensoldt. This article from Monch has some interesting info on the keenness and hesitation of some of the partners to commit to Captor-E as well as the timeframes for development.

Eurofighter TYPHOON - Moving to Electronically Scanned Radar

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/ew-c4i-c ... radar.html

The more I read the worse this decision looks. Good thing for Germany she has neighbors that can protect her airspace.

It sounds like to me there maybe issues with the CAPTOR-E which is causing both the British and Germans to take pause. Otherwise, if the radar did perform as advertised and was superior to the current radar, they would be less hesitant to fund the upgrades.

ThePointblank wrote:

It sounds like to me there maybe issues with the CAPTOR-E which is causing both the British and Germans to take pause. Otherwise, if the radar did perform as advertised and was superior to the current radar, they would be less hesitant to fund the upgrades.

I think the superior to the current radar may be the problem. The Captor-E is almost certaily better than the current Captor-M (even just for EP) but perhaps not enough to justify the investment. As the Monch article above talks about, the T2 jets don't have the additional cooling and electrical systems in place to handle the increased power of the AESA, therefore if you are only looking at upgrading T3 jets which number less than T2s the overall fleet may be more impacted on sustainment cost and fleet diversity than on radar performance.

The other side of this is software. Any operator could stick an AESA antenna on the front of most radars and get some gain but the real benefits for AESA come from the software. The Monch article indicates the physical design has been frozen for a number of years but the software is still being developed. Software delay is hardly new for defence programs but perhaps the system is mature enough for Kuwait and Qatar to go forward, neither Air Force is exactly at the pinnacle of military capability anyway.

Software is enabled by hardware. A properly designed antenna enables all sorts of high speed digital IC’s which in turn allow for rich software.

It is easy to talk about Features like LPI which unlike many over hyped technologies really is a game changer but doing this in an RF environment requires a very tight design.

LPI, an elegant antenna, sensor fusion combined w stealth allow tactics that turn 4 th gen AC into expensive target drones and air defense systems into expensive targets.

Some people in Germany understand all this. They just don’t happen to be the decision makers.

Nobody intends to actually use the plane. Germany could fly Triplanes from WWI, they would be good enough.

Ozair wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

It sounds like to me there maybe issues with the CAPTOR-E which is causing both the British and Germans to take pause. Otherwise, if the radar did perform as advertised and was superior to the current radar, they would be less hesitant to fund the upgrades.

The other side of this is software. Any operator could stick an AESA antenna on the front of most radars and get some gain but the real benefits for AESA come from the software. The Monch article indicates the physical design has been frozen for a number of years but the software is still being developed. Software delay is hardly new for defence programs but perhaps the system is mature enough for Kuwait and Qatar to go forward, neither Air Force is exactly at the pinnacle of military capability anyway.

It may also be that Software wise the aim is very high. They didn´t do all the AESA bi-static mode, Air to Air and Space to Air, testing for nothing, and that seems to be pretty tough to achieve.

I remember when Germany wanted a more advances Ka-Band seeker on the Meteor missile and couldn´t get the other partners to sign on.

best regards
Thomas

Ozair wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

It sounds like to me there maybe issues with the CAPTOR-E which is causing both the British and Germans to take pause. Otherwise, if the radar did perform as advertised and was superior to the current radar, they would be less hesitant to fund the upgrades.

I think the superior to the current radar may be the problem. The Captor-E is almost certaily better than the current Captor-M (even just for EP) but perhaps not enough to justify the investment. As the Monch article above talks about, the T2 jets don't have the additional cooling and electrical systems in place to handle the increased power of the AESA, therefore if you are only looking at upgrading T3 jets which number less than T2s the overall fleet may be more impacted on sustainment cost and fleet diversity than on radar performance.

The existing Captor-M is considered a very good, if not the best non-AESA radar on the market. It's very much possible that the operational advantage of Captor-E is relatively small, especially if you don't have the other systems ready to utilise the extra capability. For a new operator like Kuwait or Qatar, it would make no difference, but large operators like Germany or the UK would face significant costs for retrofits as well as having to train with two different systems. This would also be a reason why Germany is looking to replace the T1 aircraft. With Germany looking to upgrade the T2 aircraft, the additional cooling doesn't appear to be a problem anymore?

A few years back, the UK were pretty committed to buying Captor-E: https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-funding- ... te-never-0
It's possible, though, that they didn't consider it as important once they started receiving the F-35, since the F-35 features a pretty powerful radar itself.

mxaxai wrote:

A few years back, the UK were pretty committed to buying Captor-E: https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-funding- ... te-never-0

Extract from the rusi.org article written in 2014:

Given the huge capability advantages of AESA radars over older mechanically scanned radar systems, there is a strong argument that ‘Captor-E’ should have been funded by the Eurofighter partner nations several years ago. The technology has been ready but the commitment from partner nations has been lacking. The result has been the decline in Typhoon’s fortunes on the international export market.

Same old Eurofighter story - do it too late + increase costs enormously by doing it too late. Infantile project management..

tommy1808 wrote:

It may also be that Software wise the aim is very high. They didn´t do all the AESA bi-static mode, Air to Air and Space to Air, testing for nothing, and that seems to be pretty tough to achieve.

I remember when Germany wanted a more advances Ka-Band seeker on the Meteor missile and couldn´t get the other partners to sign on.

best regards
Thomas

As far as I can find the advertising for Captor-E still lists bi-static as a future growth option. Currently Eurofighter doesn’t have a data-link that IMO is needed to facilitate bi-static functionality anyway, it would require a MADL type datalink with higher bandwidth to gain value from that type of radar function and fusion.

mxaxai wrote:

The existing Captor-M is considered a very good, if not the best non-AESA radar on the market. It's very much possible that the operational advantage of Captor-E is relatively small, especially if you don't have the other systems ready to utilise the extra capability. For a new operator like Kuwait or Qatar, it would make no difference, but large operators like Germany or the UK would face significant costs for retrofits as well as having to train with two different systems. This would also be a reason why Germany is looking to replace the T1 aircraft. With Germany looking to upgrade the T2 aircraft, the additional cooling doesn't appear to be a problem anymore?

Captor-E will have some specific advantages even over the already very good Captor-M but whether those translate to enough operational improvements to overcome the cost and sustainment changes isn’t clear. The Monch article also had some quite contrary comments, Luftwaffe aircrew saying they don’t need it but RAF aircrew wanting the improvements to support higher end conflicts.

mxaxai wrote:

A few years back, the UK were pretty committed to buying Captor-E: https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-funding- ... te-never-0
It's possible, though, that they didn't consider it as important once they started receiving the F-35, since the F-35 features a pretty powerful radar itself.

I doubt the presence of the F-35 makes much of a difference. It likely has come down to the RAF wanting some specific enhancements and it appears that those won’t be present yet.

Some German politicians are using the recent decision to relocate one third of the US troops from Germany to other places as an opportunity to, once again, advocate against the acquisition of F/A-18. They called Trump's recent actions "arbitrary", "acts of pressure" and "blackmail".

Others, however, point out that "the US have certain technologies that Europe currently cannot replace" and recommended to maintain the cooperation in defence technology. They also advised not to escalate the current conflict, citing "democratic boundaries" that not even Trump can violate.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/mue ... -1.4984888 [German]

mxaxai wrote:

Some German politicians are using the recent decision to relocate one third of the US troops from Germany to other places as an opportunity to, once again, advocate against the acquisition of F/A-18. They called Trump's recent actions "arbitrary", "acts of pressure" and "blackmail".

Others, however, point out that "the US have certain technologies that Europe currently cannot replace" and recommended to maintain the cooperation in defence technology. They also advised not to escalate the current conflict, citing "democratic boundaries" that not even Trump can violate.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/mue ... -1.4984888 [German]

Pragmatic voices would also suggest that at this point, one is better off just waiting to see what happens in the election, because in the event of a Trump loss, so much will be reversed.

The inital Eurofighter buy is planned to pass through the German parliament in late October 2020. This decision only concerns the 38 Tranche 4 aircraft that are supposed to replace the current Tranche 1 fleet.

It is implied that contract for the Tornado replacement (30 F/A-18F, 15 EA-18G, 40 Eurofighter) will not happen this year, since no announcement was made to the members of parliament (though short-term announcements are possible).

https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/08/bmvg ... inedrohne/ [German]

art wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

A few years back, the UK were pretty committed to buying Captor-E: https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-funding- ... te-never-0

Extract from the rusi.org article written in 2014:

Given the huge capability advantages of AESA radars over older mechanically scanned radar systems, there is a strong argument that ‘Captor-E’ should have been funded by the Eurofighter partner nations several years ago. The technology has been ready but the commitment from partner nations has been lacking. The result has been the decline in Typhoon’s fortunes on the international export market.

Same old Eurofighter story - do it too late + increase costs enormously by doing it too late. Infantile project management..

There is some truth in that many European programs have so many changing parties in them, there are so many industry interest groups and everything is so democratic that timeless and budgets become vague hopes, that nobody takes serious.

In recent programs you see they (Hermany, France) are trying to limit design partnerships and centralize program management. Spain is allowed in because of their coperative loyalty and industrial base.

The only thing for certain is the SH has very little chance accomplishing a deep strike Mission let alone surviving.

Who is advocating it and what is their a Rational?

Planeflyer wrote:

The only thing for certain is the SH has very little chance accomplishing a deep strike Mission let alone surviving.

Who is advocating it and what is their a Rational?

If you are tasked to deliver nuclear ordnance, you might as well not bother trying to return to base.

I say that because I had a friend who flew the English Electric Lightning. Its primary role was to intercept Russian bombers over the North Sea. It was armed with just two A2A missiles. When the world came perilously close to nuclear war in 1962, pilots were briefed that in the event of Russian attack they were to intercept and shoot down attacking bombers. When they had used their 2 missiles they should attempt to ram another target then eject. There would be no point in trying to return to base since there would be no base to return to. There would be no air-sea rescue after ejection either.

art wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

The only thing for certain is the SH has very little chance accomplishing a deep strike Mission let alone surviving.

Who is advocating it and what is their a Rational?

If you are tasked to deliver nuclear ordnance, you might as well not bother trying to return to base.

I say that because I had a friend who flew the English Electric Lightning. Its primary role was to intercept Russian bombers over the North Sea. It was armed with just two A2A missiles. When the world came perilously close to nuclear war in 1962, pilots were briefed that in the event of Russian attack they were to intercept and shoot down attacking bombers. When they had used their 2 missiles they should attempt to ram another target then eject. There would be no point in trying to return to base since there would be no base to return to. There would be no air-sea rescue after ejection either.

We might conclude the nucleair outlook both parties had, made both pick up the phone and strike a deal on occasions. Nobody wants half it's country destroyed / big part of its population wiped out. The russians of course had "been there, done that" not so long before, so were probably a little less dangerous / aggressive we were made to believe, just traumatized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... lties2.svg

The nuclear arms race came from the fear within each side that the political system of the other side will prevail.

Nowadays, there are more effective ways to undermine the others' political system. The "West" with their popular media with their current champions K-Pop and Korean Drama and Russia and China with the armies of keyboard warriors manipulating social media.

Time to dial back those nuclear bombs and missiles. Germany's and the US's money would be better spent bolstering the conventional, political and economic forces of those border states.

But alas, such pragmatic solutions will not see the light of day.

bt

Why spend so much money for an AC that has very little chance of ever reaching the target?

Germany is going to have their hands full keeping their airspace free of enemy ac let alone penetrating enemy territory.

As was just recently demonstrated in Iran, stealth AC and precision munitions greatly enhance deterrence.

That Lightning mission plan reminds me of the USAF Voodoo and the Genie combination. Nothing like being tasked to deliver a remotely aimed air to air nuclear armed missile that's designed to take out whole formations of enemy bombers, especially when the whole concept was still not an exact science and you risked being lethally irradiated or outright destroyed in the blast. Testing proved that usage of the Genie was as safe as advertised, but, it was only tested once, and with a slower airframe.

Planeflyer wrote:

Germany is going to have their hands full keeping their airspace free of enemy ac let alone penetrating enemy territory.

Come on man. Geography is everything!

The distance between Germany and Belarus is over 350 miles. And with the current political situation there, the more plausible threat is Russia, at over 700 miles away.

Keeping their air space clear would be easier than you'd think. You are right about penetrating enemy airspace though!

So if the purpose of the SH is to meet Germany's nucleat obligation, then go with the cheapest solution and don't worry about whether the SH can penetrate enemy air space, knowing that by the time the nuclear option is excersised, air defenses on both side will be full of holes that even a loaded C-17 with a daisy cutter can sneak through.

If a full out conflict with Russia were to happened right now, I doubt they will be able to get past Warsaw.

Sure, they may still have lots of tanks and airplanes, but supporting those hardware on a full scale invasion force require a logistic system I doubt they have.

Though I do not disagree with Trump in saying some in NATO is not spending enough on defense. I can understand how they are reluctant to spend money to guard against a diminishing threat.

bt

Germany is not spending the money based on current threats. This is something they will live with for 40-50 years. And in Europe, security situations can change must faster than this.

Planeflyer wrote:

Germany is not spending the money based on current threats. This is something they will live with for 40-50 years..

Well, in that case the F35 would be a terrible investment, after all the Airbus LOUT is designed for low level penetration, based on the assumption that a) even stealth aircraft won´t be able to penetrate future air defenses unless they go back down to the deck, denying LoS, and b) AEW won´t be survivable. Why spend money on what was the future threat 30 years ago, and risking funding for a project to meet now future threats in the process?

best regards
Thomas

I do think that this NATO nuclear requirement would have lapsed had not Putin been increasingly hostile, including deploying systems like Iskander specifically to intimidate NATO nations, especially newer ones that were once part of the empire he joined with in the KGB.

So this idea of hanging nukes on a new generation of German AF aircraft is more of a political than practical military move, also to show willing as an alliance partner, the 2nd richest one in NATO.
(NATO nations have been stepping up spending, some more than others true, in response to calls from the previous US administration, it was in 2015 that the direction of travel started to change, guess what? Sovereign democratic nations tend to respond better when persuaded by a reliable POTUS than one who insults them and hugs despots).

If cost and viability is a concern in the longer term, as stated by others, see where we are after November, if sanity has returned fence mending will be needed, in that context how about the German AF lease the proposed Hornets for a 10-15 year period? With the understanding that the EA-18G's also be available for general NATO operations, (likely anyway, the first combat the post war German AF had was in 1999 over Kosovo with Tornado IDS ECR's after all).

The best what to do if we had to fly that mission in the Cold War that I have heard, was from former Vulcan pilot in the V-Force of the 60's, Andrew Brooks, whose commander told him 'if you want my advice, carry on going East, bail out and hope to settle down with a warm Mongolian woman'.
Brooks at the time had a young family who lived in married quarters on the base.

Not sure what you guys are talking about but the paradigm to stealth shifted 20 years ago so it makes zero sense doing what Germany is currently planning.

Planeflyer wrote:

Not sure what you guys are talking about but the paradigm to stealth shifted 20 years ago so it makes zero sense doing what Germany is currently planning.

I can explain that: Stealth from 20 years ago won´t cut it all the way during the use time of an aircraft you can buy now.

best regards
Thomas

As was just proved in Iran, stealth is as close to silver bullet as weapons development as ever seen.

In one stroke the entire deterrence dynamic has been reset.

Hell, if you want survivable, non-stealth nuke capable aircraft, then a hypersonic nuke missile mounted on an F-15EX would do the trick. You just have to wait for the US do develop such a system.

bt

I’m sorry you guys are missing the point. Wars start largely because bellicose leadership is almost never in harms way.

Nukes provide excellent deterrence because of the MAD dynamic. Leadership and everyone else is in harms way.

The F35, as was just demonstrated puts Strategic and leadership targets in harms way wo all the collateral damage that goes along w nukes.

No fuss, no nukes, not even any evidence. One raid that was over before anyone knew any better changed the entire security dynamic in the Mid East.

My point is you are looking at it from the US point of view. The F-35 is a great deterrent if you take nukes out of the equation.

We are talking about Germany here. What schenario is there where Germany will need to use nuke or F-35's without the inclusion of NATO or the US?

Their need for deterence is with respect to Russia, not Iran. That deterrence is through NATO and the obligation to carry nukes. A few F-18s or F-35s here or there will not make a difference. But the obligation as member of an alliance will.

bt

Yes, Germany is making the purchase largely to meet its NATO obligations. So, why buy obsolete 4 th gen AC when you can have 5 th gen that gives you much greater deterrence wo needing your resort to Nukes?

I’m not saying the F35 is the answer for every defense issue Europe may face over the next 40-50 years but in the hands of a Western Europeon nation it gives the good guys a tremendous amount of deterrence.